Appeal No. 2000-0504
Application 08/799,898
We will also sustain the rejection of claim 4 as
unpatentable over Jones considered alone. The appellant never
discusses this rejection in appellant’s brief. This unargued
rejection is affirmed.
Turning to the rejection of claims 1 through 5 rejected
under Riccio alone, we are in agreement with the examiner that
Riccio discloses a means 2,4 for mounting an object and means
6 for attaching the object. Appellant argues that there is
nothing in Riccio to suggest that a single stabilizing arm
could be used to hold the tree. Claims 1 through 5 are of the
open-ended type and use the word “comprising”. It is our view
that these claims do not preclude the presence of additional
arms over and above any single arm disclosed in Riccio.
Therefore, the rejection of claims 1 through 5 is affirmed.
specification (and equivalents thereof). The “means for
fixedly attaching” has been construed as a clamp, such as
clamp 25/26 as disclosed in the specification (and equivalents
thereof).
6
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Next
Last modified: November 3, 2007